ARUNESH KANT SHRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference petition under Sec. 7 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) filed by the petitioner/claimant seeking an award of refund of Rs. 55,000.00 as deposited with the respondents as earnest money in the form of FDR, for claim of Rs. 12,675.00 deposited as security deposit, claim for Rs. 12,675.00 deposited as performance guarantee total amounting to Rs. 80,350.00 with interest on all 3 claims at the rate of 16% per annum.

(2.) An agreement No. 39/DL of 2006-07 vide (Article-"A") was entered between the petitioner and respondents for reconstruction and widening of weak and narrow culverts in K.M. 99/10, 100/6, 100/8, 100/10, 1001/1, 1002/2, 1004/4, 10022/2, 10022/4, 10022/4, 10031/2, 10036/8, 10037/8, 10039/8 and 140/2 of NH-200, work order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 01/03/2007 vide work order No. 509/SAC Bilaspur vide Ex.P-4, the amount of tender was 72.73 lacs, the Stipulated period for completion of work was 4 month excluding rainy season, work was not completed, the agreement was terminated on 15/5/2007 vide F.x.P-9, which was subsequently revived on 20/06/2007 vide Ex.P-12, petitioner had received Rs. 2,53,503.00 for the work to the extent what he had executed. The contract was ultimately terminated on 15/02/2008 vide Ex.P-22, are not substantially disputed.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the petitioner had mobilised manpower and machinery at the work-site just after receipt of work order. But, the department did not provide the required drawing and designs, however, the petitioner commenced the widening of culverts in K.N. 100/6, 100/2 and 1002/2 as per the verbal instructions given by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He had been repeatedly requesting the department to provide drawing and designs so that he could complete the work but the department did not provide him drawing and design during the entire agreement period. Petitioner had applied for extension of time, however, the department did not answer the request under these circumstances the petitioner made a request to determine the contract under Clause 14 of the agreement but, surprisingly the department issued show cause notice to terminate the contract under Clause 3 of the agreement and illegally terminated the contract on 15/02/2008. Order of termination of contract under Clause 3 was illegal as the time had never been the essence of contract and the facts and circumstances of the case do not fall under the ambit of any of the eventualities provided in Clause 3 of the agreement. The petitioner had invoked Clause 28 of the agreement by making a quantified claim to the Superintendent Engineer on 14/03/2008 which came to be rejected on 13/11/ 2009. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer on 11/12/2009 but, the Chief Engineers did not make any order on his appeal. Hence this reference petition.